Update from the
Heartland
No.780
21.11.16 – 27.11.16
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I trust all American citizens enjoyed a celebratory
Thanksgiving holiday with their families.
We certainly did. We have
much to be grateful for in life.
The
hits just keep coming. The fourth
book in my To So Few series of historical novels has been published in print
and in all digital forms. The book
is available from any brick & mortar bookstore (probably by special order) or
any on-line source, like Apple’s iBooks, Barnes & Noble, Amazon, et al.
To So Few (Book IV) –
The
Trial
With the aerial battle exploding in its full viciousness,
the leaders of Fighter Command struggle against mounting opposition with
rapidly depleting resources. Brian
Drummond and his brother’s in arms rise every day with the knowledge it could
be their last flight against extraordinarily long odds. Everyone sees the obvious, the only
obstacles between the British Isles and near certain domination by the highly
successful and ebullient Germans were the Royal Navy and less than 1,000,
young, largely untested pilots of Fighter Command. Prime Minister Winston Churchill bears witness to the heroic
feats of those few, intrepid, young aviators who stood in the breach during the
summer of 1940. Amidst the carnage
of the epic battle, Charlotte Palmer – a beautiful, older, war widow – saves
Brian’s life, receives the George Cross from King George VI, and becomes very special
to ace Pilot Officer Brian Drummond.
I
would like to take this moment to make a special offer to subscribers to this
humble forum and readers of the “Update from the Heartland” Blog. To the first (shall we say) ten (10)
requests, I will provide a print copy of The Trial along with
appropriate postage to anyone who wishes to read the book in exchange for a
written review of the book for Amazon, Goodreads, Barnes & Noble, or any
other site you choose. I would
appreciate a courtesy copy – good, bad or ugly. Lastly, I would be most grateful for a recommendation to
your family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances and contacts. Interested individuals should send me a
simple message via reply, separate eMail, website contact form or any other
means of your choosing with your name and postal address. I will take care of the rest.
With
considerable sadness, I report the sudden passing of my friend, classmate,
fellow Marine and frequent contributor to this humble forum Lieutenant Colonel
Jan Peter Fladeboe, USMC (Ret.) [USNA 1970] – a very good man who will be
sorely missed. May God rest your
immortal soul, my friend.
The follow-up news items:
-- In the continuing debate about the viability,
applicability or validity of the Electoral College, a cartoon visually
summarized my concern should we pass and ratify a constitutional amendment to
eliminate the Electoral College.
Credit to: Michael P.
Ramirez
While the Electoral College, as defined in the Constitution
does not preclude or prevent domination by the population centers, the
constitutional provision at least makes an attempt to allow smaller and less
populated states to be heard. The
votes are still being counted in some states and are not yet finalized or
certified. Hillary Clinton’s
popular vote margin continues to grow; as of this writing, that margin has
exceeded 2,000,000 votes (2%). The
popular vote reality makes the distribution and the Electoral College predicted
vote count even starker. The
by-state, by-county, 2016 presidential popular vote counts, so far, are
depicted in the first map.
Credit to: Washington Post
While the sea of red appears impressive, the scattered blue
counties contain 2,000,000 more votes than all of the red counties combined. Yet, it is the anticipated Electoral
College vote (19.December.2016) that will officially determine the outcome of
the 2016 presidential election.
Credit to:
RealClearPolitics.com
Further discussion of the Electoral College is offered in
the Comment Section below.
This
week, we learned that Jill Stein and the Green Party have raised the funds
necessary to demand a recount the votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania,
based on the hypothesis developed by several political science
specialists. They see consistent negative
differences between districts using electronic balloting versus paper balloting,
with the suggestion that the electronic results may have been manipulated
(presumably by hackers, and potentially by Russia). Then, the Clinton campaign announced they would participate,
more as concerned observers rather than active players.
Of
course, the “Manhattan Mussolini” is not pleased and publicly condemned the
Green Party initiative as an outright scam – interesting reaction given his
incessant whining about the “rigged” system that got him elected.
As
a separate but related observation, I must say Jill Stein is a class act. I’m just sayin’.
President-elect
Trump told the New York Times, “The
law is totally on my side. The
president can’t have a conflict of interest.” Trump’s statement sounds distinctively like a statement in
the Blackstone Commentaries 1-7-237 (1765):
Original English of the day:
“But it is at the fame time a maxim in
thofe laws, that the king himfelf can do no wrong; fince it would be a great
weaknefs and abfurdity in any fyftem of pofitive law, to define any poffible
wrong, without any poffible redrefs.”
Transformed to contemporary English:
“But it is at the same time a maxim in
those laws, that the king himself can do no wrong; since it
would be a great weakness and absurdity in any system of positive law, to
define any possible wrong, without any possible redress.”
Trump has given us a heads-up (like virtually everything he
did and said during the campaign) that practical, traditional, reasonable
ethics do NOT apply to The Donald.
Therefore, the only rules that apply to Trump are his rules – trust him,
believe him, it will be the best ever.
Apparently, The Donald truly believes he is the king . . . no . . . he
must believe he is better than any king, any emperor, better than any political
leader, anywhere, at any time in history, or the future for that matter. This is what a man devoid of any
semblance of humility or morality looks like and acts. We have to hang on for a very rough
ride, and his tenure has not even begun, yet.
We
have all read in books or heard in movies or documentary videos the simple
phrased, Heil Hitler. The
German phrase translates into, “Hail Hitler.” The phrase became commonplace and an expected salutation of
devout Nazis, and even within the military after Nacht der Langen Messer
(Night of the
Long Knives, 29/30.June.1934) and the requirement of each member of the
military (private to field marshal) to swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler, the
man, not the state or the people (2.August.1934). From this point in history, Adolf Hitler was publicly and
generally referred to as Der Führer (The Leader).
Now,
we hear a white supremacist group gathered in Washington, D.C., publicly
proclaim, “Hail Trump. Hail
victory,” along with the straight arm salute so notably characteristic of Nazis
in Germany.
The
reality that white supremacist, neo-Nazis, ultra-right nationalists identify
with Trump, regardless of the president-elect’s personal or private affinity or
lack of same is immaterial. His
words have clearly inspired these extremist groups to become more visible and
public.
Is
there reason for concern?
YES! Is there reason for
vigilance and loyal opposition?
Absolutely! This is way too
close for any degree of comfort.
And, we have four (4) long years that have not even begun, yet to go.
There
are not many times I disagree with Leonard Pitts, but here is one of those
times.
“I’m not in the mood for ‘unity.’ Trump’s still a bigot”
by Leonard Pitts, Jr. – Miami Herald
Wichita
Eagle
Published: NOVEMBER 16, 2016; 9:12 AM
I actually agree with his assessment of the man, as I have
written for 18 months. However,
this Grand Republic is bigger and more important than all of us, including the
“Manhattan Mussolini,” who will soon be our official president-elect. Apparently, unlike Leonard, I intend to
do my best to look beyond his monumental character flaws to the office he shall
soon occupy (at least we think he will, but perhaps he will be President from
Trump Tower in Manhattan, and will never occupy the White House). Trump’s new position does not make him
a good man, but he will soon be our president. Full stop!
Comments and contributions from Update no.779:
Comment to the Blog:
“I agree with your correspondent about the Electoral College, but
let me see if I can make it simpler and, thus, clearer. The Electoral College
came about shortly after the founding of this nation due to the political and
economic importance of agriculture (which was then based on slavery). I am not
sure it was a good thing then, and today it still stops each vote from counting
the same as all others. ‘One [woman or] man, one vote’ ought to be a guiding
principle here. Why should your vote in Kansas (or someone else’s in Nevada) be
more important than mine in Ohio?
“Lesser but notable: the Census Bureau does not ask immigration
status because doing so would surely lead to inaccurate results in their
counts. The Department of Homeland Insecurity makes professional-quality
estimates, linked here: https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/population-estimates/unauthorized-resident. Contrary to a common notion, the number
of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. seems to be declining year-over-year.
Follow the link to compare years.
“Mr. Trump’s abandonment of campaign promises is notable for his
openness about it and for the speed with which it has occurred. I’ll say it
again: nobody knows what a President Trump will do, including President Trump.
“This particular silly season may not be over yet, for a couple of
reasons. (1) Are you aware that many states do not bind their electors to their
popular vote, and others provide only minor penalties for a non-conforming
vote? (2) Some resolution must be found for the number of lawsuits and the
extreme level of conflicts of interest our sort-of elected President is
involved in. I cannot even guess how that will play out, but so far Mr. Trump
has refused to set up the kind of blind trust that all of his predecessors have
used to resolve the conflicts of interest. The lawsuits are a new twist. Also,
it’s not beyond belief that criminal charges could be filed on him. A friend of
his has done Federal time for a child prostitution charge.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
Electoral College. Like so many
aspects of our form of governance and indeed even the social fabric of this
Grand Republic are based on respecting the rights of minorities over the weight
of a willful majority. The effect
of the Electoral College on presidential elections has brought different
election dynamics every time.
There are very real reasons for that variance. Each state has its own rules regarding the conduct of
electors. There are many other
potential disruptive combinations, e.g., imagine if a third party candidate won
one or more states, say 20-30 electoral votes, such that no candidate won a
majority (270) and the election went to the House of Representatives per the
Constitution. Some folks are
actively trying to influence and alter the electoral results of the
election. We will not know until
states cast their electoral votes (19.December.2016) and Congress convenes in
joint session to count and validate the state electoral votes (6.January.2017). Until this election is sealed and done
by Congress, uncertainty remains and seems to be indicative of our time.
FYI side note: one of my many arguments against the strict
constructionists like the late Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas is the
fallacy of thinking we must judge the words of the Constitution in the context
of circumferential assumptions at the time of Founding / Framing (1787). The same concerns that created the
Senate equal to the House of Representatives in the Legislative Branch also
created the Electoral College.
There is no question in my mind that states’ rights (slavery) at the
time and the compromises associated with finding a solution for ALL states was
a major factor. That does not
diminish the wisdom of the Framers in that compromise.
“One
person, one vote” = simple popular vote.
The consequence is states have no meaning, no value. The Framers never accepted or supported
simple majority votes. There are a
host of examples to substantiate that statement. The Framers tried mightily to ensure small states would not
be drown out by large states and a willful majority could not subjugate
minorities . . . whatever their original motives that was their purpose. This is not to say we have not had
failures to uphold even that ideal.
Failures do not mean we should abandon the principles.
Re:
census. I do not have sufficient
knowledge of the inner-workings and hidden mechanisms of the national
census. I know what the law says,
but I suppose that does not mean much these days.
Re:
Trump. I intend to reserve
judgment until we see more of his actions. My concerns prior to the election remain. I hope that he rises to the challenge
of his new office. The preliminary
indicators are NOT encouraging.
Re:
conflict of interest. We do not
have sufficient evidence and probably won’t have until the inauguration
approaches. Trump defied ethics
norms established over generations.
I see no reason to believe he will change his conduct once he is
inaugurated. I suspect he will make
no attempt to create a blind trust, and even if he tried; control in the hands
of his immediate family is NOT a blind trust. At least for the next two years (and perhaps longer), he
will have a Republican controlled Congress, which means the likelihood of
appropriate laws to codify ethics and conflicts of interest standards for
federal office holders is quite doubtful.
The silly season was probably an excellent predictor of what we shall
endure during the Trump administration (however long it may be). Time shall tell the tale.
. . . Round two:
“I find your paragraph on ‘one person, one vote’ entirely
confusing. How does election by popular vote equate to ‘states have no meaning,
no value’? That's silly. States have ample meaning. For example, they led the way
on marriage equality and continue to lead on marijuana legalization and other
issues. How does ignoring the geographic origin of a vote invalidate anything
about the states? And what does any of this have to do with minority rights?
Minority people are not distributed according to state populations. What about
the right of those of us in more populated places to have our votes counted
equally?
“I saw a headline this evening stating that the conflict of
interest issue is covered by the Constitution, but I have not had time to check
on that yet. In any case, I imagine that such conflicts are already addressed
by statutes.”
. . . to which the contributor added before I
could respond to the comment above:
“The ‘emoluments clause’ of the Constitution referred to in the
headline I mentioned is probably the ‘nobility clause,’ Article 1, Section 9,
Clause 8. It forbids any office holder to ‘accept of any present, emolument,
office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign
state.’ Given Trump's foreign holdings, that could be an issue, but he is not
an office holder until inauguration.
. . . to which I responded (to both) in round two:
I
shall respond to both follow-up contributions together.
Re:
states. We can argue whether
states have “ample meaning.” Yet,
I think we can agree that simple, national, popular vote eliminates any vestige
of state meaning, purpose or value, at least with respect to presidential
elections. If states did not or do
not matter, the nation would be simply America, rather than the United States
of America. Of course, each state
can decide how they wish to divvy up their electoral votes. Some are winner take all. Some by the final vote count in their
respective state. Maryland passed an Act concerning Presidential Elections – Agreement Among
the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote (HB148
[SB634]). The law says it does not matter what the vote count is in the State
of Maryland . . . only the national popular vote matters. A candidate could literally get ZERO
votes in the state, but the Maryland electoral votes in toto (10 in this case) would go to the national popular vote
winner. Thus, the residents of
Maryland have ceased to be relevant {[279];
10.April.2007}.
Re:
Electoral College. I wrote more
about the Electoral College in this week’s Update.
Re:
presidential conflict of interest.
Your recitation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8, is accurate, but you
failed to note that Article 1 is the Legislative article. There is no similar clause in Article 2
or Article 3. To my knowledge, the
external compensation provisions have never been tested before the
Supremes. So far, it appears the
president-elect intends to challenge the emolument provision, and I suspect he
intends to press the limits as far as he can. More on the conflict of interest matters in this week’s
Update, as well.
It
is my opinion the next few years will be just as crazy, if not crazier, than
the obscenity of this last silly season.
This is going to be a rough ride.
. . . Round three:
“You have given me no reason why the States, as entities, should
influence Presidential elections. That is a Federal matter.”
. . . my response to round three:
Appropriate
challenge, I must say.
I
could say something simple like historic, traditional, the incubators of social
change, however, the reality is, the reason only depends upon your perspective,
i.e., are you a federalist or a states’ rights citizen?
The
encroachment of federalism has been incessant and perpetual from the Founding. This election will not alter that
pressure. Throughout our history,
we have endured episodes of rebalance.
We do not always get it right, but we try nonetheless.
As
the Declaration so eloquently observes:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established
should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed.”
As such, I must turn this back to you. We are discussing a process “long
established” that has been repeatedly tested over many elections, many years
and over several centuries. So, I
must ask you, what is the “patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is
now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of
Government”?
Our
system of governance has never been about simple majority rule. We have many layers of checks and
balances to guard against the imposition of dicta by a willful majority and the
concentration of power. I, for
one, do not see the compelling reasons to cast off our long proven processes.
Lastly,
with all the whining during the silly season from the “Manhattan Mussolini”
about our election system being rigged, I fully expected him to be the one
screaming for abolishment of the Electoral College. Instead, we have the other side (that lost the election by
the established process) clamoring for abolishment of the Electoral
College. Quite a twist, I must
say.
. . . Round four:
“While the Declaration of Independence is not law but apologia,
you have something of a point about giving reasons. The reason for keeping this
particular process is to deter a demagogue or fraud from becoming President.
Plenty of people see Trump as both, but the Electoral College, as it has
traditionally worked, will do nothing to prevent his Presidency. The reason for
abolishing it is simple. The United States, since its inception, has
continually become more and more inclusive and egalitarian. Counting each vote
equally would serve that purpose.”
The contributor added
in parallel the following article in a FaceBook posting:
“Electoral College must reject Trump unless he sells his business,
top lawyers for Bush and Obama say – Ethics lawyers for the last two
presidents are in agreement.”
by Judd Legum, Editor-In-Chief
ThinkProgress
Published: 25.November.2016
. . . my response to round four in toto:
Re:
“apologia.” Oh my! I
suppose that claim could be successfully argued given the context of the
Declaration’s issuance. I do not
find the term attractive, I must say.
Nonetheless, you are correct.
The Declaration is not law in any form. However, it is a reflection of the mood and attitudes of the
Founders, thus of some value in understanding the basis and foundation of this
Grand Republic.
Re:
Electoral College. Yes, that was
the original intent. However, no system
is infallible, as we bear witness this year. The Donald is the epitome of a demagogue, and I am relegated
to hoping he does not take his demagoguery into violent realms as Hitler did. I choose NOT to give him credit for
winning. Rather, I believe Hillary
and her campaign team lost the election by playing a far too narrow, focused
effort that missed reality in marginal states . . . to do just enough to get by
. . . not too much.
Re:
counting votes. Votes are counted
equally within each state. Each
state determines how to represent the vote count within their respective state
within the Electoral College. As
indicated previously, Maryland passed a law and chose to ignore the state’s
vote count in deference to the national popular vote count. I think it was
foolish to abdicate in that way; it just does not make sense to me. You can work to get Ohio to do the
same, if you wish. I will not
encourage you or anyone else to follow Maryland’s so far lone example.
I
shall acknowledge your FaceBook posting regarding the advocacy of some
[lawyers] for electors to disregard the vote counts and the established rules
within their state delegation. I
must reject their advocacy or similar actions regardless of the education or
background of the advocates. As I have
consistently written since the beginning of the silly season, the rules are the
rules. If we don’t like the rules,
change them legally and properly.
To my thinking, we do not have the option to reject the rules or whine
about the rules because we do not like the outcome. Rejection of Trump’s ominous conflicts of interest should
properly be handled in court and eventually in the legislature, as Franklin
Roosevelt’s disregard for precedence in 1940. At worst, impeach him for his transgressions.
. . . Round five:
“I will note that we agree that Mrs. Clinton lost the game-playing
aspect of the election and add that I did not see her as worthy of my vote,
given her centrist history and financial sources.
“You still have not explained why one vote should not equal any
other vote nationwide.”
. . . my response to round five:
Well,
actually, I believe I have explained my reasons. I cannot force you to accept my explanation or reasons.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
(Private grammar note: it’s “brothers in arms” rather than “brother’s.” The possessive would be “brothers’ in arms. Such things prevent sales.)
The Electoral College exists because some of the Founders foresaw the United States as a relatively loose confederation of independent nations. Hence the term “States” in the name rather than “provinces” or something similar. Such “states” would choose a President in the manner given so that each member of the confederation had an equal say. However, the notion of self-governing States met with defeat in 1865 by military force. From then on, I see no clear role for the States in electing the President, who is a Federal official not bound to a given State. We have become far more urban and less agricultural economically since then, and the time has come to choose “one voter, one vote” over the Electoral College. That gives rural people an equal voice, not their current bullhorn.
As a Green Party USA member, I will note here that the Clinton campaign has not been invited to “participate” in our request for a recount. They are, of course, free to state their support. Individual donations would also be welcome in legitimate amounts, but we do not accept money from corporations, SuperPACs or anything similar.
Thanks to the ACLU, I now have a copy of the Constitution within easy reach. The Nobility Clause (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8) reads, in full, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.” That phrase “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them” clearly includes President Trump, should he be sworn in. The term “under them” refers clearly to its antecedent, “the United States”.
Your call for unity borders on a call to suppress dissent. No. No more than the Republicans have practiced unity under Obama. I will support him exactly to the degree that I see his actions as beneficial to the USA and not a bit more.
Calvin,
Point taken. Good catch. You are of course precisely correct. My bad.
Re: Electoral College. I think you are being a smidge too cavalier in your rendition of history. The Founders recognized the failure of the Articles of Confederation in just a few years and led to the constitutional convention just six (6) years after the Confederation was ratified. The cartoon in last week’s Update is probably the best depiction of what will happen without the Electoral College. The Founders / Framers recognized the incessant and perpetual struggle between federalism and state’s rights, between government and the individual. In this, we shall respectfully disagree.
Re: Green Party. Noted. To be clear, the Green Party submitted the recount petition. The Clinton campaign only intends to monitor the recount with lawyers / observers.
Re: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8. My only point was, the interpretation has not been challenged and determination rendered before the Supreme Court, and I am certain the kind of pervasive entanglement represented by Donald Trump has never been faced by our system of governance. I do not hold much confidence that he will do the correct ethical action on his own. So, the sooner the petition for redress is placed before the Supremes the better. I would much rather have a clear, definitive statement by the Supreme Court rather than face the potential of impeachment, conviction and removal in the future. I believe The Donald truly believes he is covered by the “divine right of kings” and that there is no requirement for him to do anything, i.e., by definition, the President can have no conflicts of interests, therefore there is no reason for him to do anything . . . just as he so easily violated virtually every presidential precedent. His clear conflict of interest is no different from everything else – taxes, decorum, dignity, respect, et al. I cannot argue with your interpretation, but the interpretation has not been tested.
Re: unity. Oh wow! Suppression of dissent . . . surely you do not level that accusation at me. I see myself as the voice of dissent. My comment came from the reality that insanity is defined by continuing to do the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome. As long as we continue our intransigence, we shall continue on the path to insanity.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment